No need for network neutrality

The UK government is in the final stages of creation for its "Digital Britain" report, which will lay out positions on everything from file sharing to broadband. Tucked into the report's interim conclusions are a few nuggets about network neutrality, which has never generated the same heat and light in Europe as it has in the US. The interim report says that "the Government has yet to see a case for legislation in favour of net neutrality. In consequence, unless Ofcom find network operators or ISPs to have Significant Market Power and justify intervention on competition grounds, traffic management will not be prevented."

Instead, ISPs are supposed to disclose clearly what sort of limits they impose on connections. If consumers don't like it, they can choose another ISP.

The BBC doesn't like it, since the throttling allegedly affects the Beeb's own iPlayer "catch-up" Internet service, which offers UK citizens the chance to watch BBC shows online after they have already aired. ISPs don't want iPlayer traffic clogging the tubes, and they've been making noise about it for years. Back in 2007, some tried to squeeze the BBC for cash because of all the traffic iPlayer was generating.

BT's own "fair usage policy" makes all of the restrictions clear, though the company takes issue with any suggestion that it is degrading iPlayer quality. "We do not impose any restrictions that affect the viewing quality of services such as BBC iPlayer or Catch Up on Channel4.com or ITV.com, as these stream at up to 800Kbps," says BT. "However, we do limit the speed of all video streaming to 896Kbps on our Option 1 product, during peak times only, which is between 5pm - midnight every day."

But the BBC says that iPlayer operates at three different speeds, with the top one topping out at 1.5Mbps.

Those that don't like "Option 1"—a 10GB/month plan with P2P throttling, heavy usage throttling, and video streaming limits—can upgrade to a higher-priced plan that "only" has P2P throttling, heavy usage throttling, and a 20GB/month allowance. Or they can choose an unlimited data plan... with P2P throttling and heavy usage throttling. Or they can choose another ISP altogether.

The restrictions are all laid out on the company's website, which makes them totally legal. The approach to this issue taken by UK telecoms regulator Ofcom has been a voluntary code of practice for ISPs that makes sure all speed limits are clear. "ISPs must use their best endeavours to set out clearly, and in a prominent place on their websites (e.g. within help or FAQs sections), information relating to their respective policies on fair usage," says the code.

The BBC might not like it, but in the UK, this is more a business dispute and matter of public pressure than it is a matter of law. In the US, by contrast, attempts to impose even one of these restrictions have been met with strong statements from legislators and even direct intervention in particular cases. Heck, we even have a President who is the "Net Neutralist in Chief."

The UK approach is in part a product of the country's approach to competition. Mandatory line-sharing rules mean that there is more competition among DSL providers than exists in the US, but it's still worth wondering if some form of baseline service requirements might be useful. The throttling of specific protocols, for instance, could have a dramatic effect on innovation; what new company will try to launch a new HD streaming site, for instance, if it knows that several of the country's largest ISPs will throttle the service during peak hours—even though they sell their customers 8Mbps connections?

If you can get BT broadband then you can get any ADSL broadband pretty much

Given that O2 (a largeish mobile telephone company) offer (up to) 20Mb/s for £10 if you're a customer and they have fairly good coverage, I have no idea why people are with BT for an inferior service...

I don't understand why anyone is uses BT, their products are poor value, but those who do deserve what they get. Capitalism only works when people make intelligent choices about what products and services offer them the best deal.

For some reason a lot of people here in the UK don't seem to get it, I know a lot of people who never change their power company even when they are getting a really bad deal, for example (I change mine every year if it's not in the top 5 best deals).

Likewise a lot of people get their phone service from BT for no better reason than that they're the ex-national-monopoly and they advertise on TV more than anyone else, as far as I can tell. And they get broadband from BT because they get their phone service from BT, and BT sends them bundle offers.

As far as net neutrality is concerned, I'm actually glad BT is being this evil, I hope they do worse in fact. As the article mentions, there really hasn't been much of a drive for net neutrality in the UK. Maybe some serious abuse is what is needed to get some debate going on the issue, but I'm not holding my breath.

The government should create a central registry where all of the broadband providers must put their limitations, the prices for their service, and a link to a page where people can sign up for their service. The government further should be required to fund PSAs to make sure everyone in the UK knows about that site. If they are so fond of competition, then they should facilitate it. Or, some enterprising person should do the same and put advertising on his or her page.

In all fairness, if there is a truly competitive broadband landscape and a reasonably priced alternative without the restrictions (or at least, with different restrictions) available in all areas of the UK, this isn't a good example case for net neutrality. It's then a good case study in the merits of competition.

I can't say that I personally would give BT my money even though I am not a heavy user and don't use P2P. I muddle along on a dog slow EDVO connection with 5GB and dream of having real broadband again some day. Still, with a 10GB bandwidth cap, you'd better not be streaming much internet video anyway and the restrictions themselves are rather moot.

Perhaps readers in the UK can comment on whether or not the competition actually exists and isn't just hypothetically allowed by law?

There's plenty of real competition in the UK. If you have a BT-provided phone line (which you don't have to use for calls; there's plenty of option on how calls are made over the line such as carrier pre-select), then you can use any of the DSL providers. The only catch is, if you sign up to BT for your broadband, it's usually a year's contract with a hefty get-out cost.

There are plenty of providers that are much, much better. Be (now owned by O2, and powering their broadband offering) have 3 months notice, some providers have 1 month, etc.

As someone living in the UK, I can confirm there's plenty of competition for ISPs. However, the copper infrastructure is entirely administered and maintained by BT. There are alternatives to copper: 3G (several operators) and fibre optic cable (one operator). You may also see municipal WiFi, which probably runs through copper as well.

The different ISPs have very different conditions, all using the same copper network.

A couple of comments mention that O2 broadband is good. Ironically, O2 is owned by BT -- it's their mobile phone arm (also, by the way, has the iPhone 3G contract in the UK).

I don't really see the government's position as a problem. I would like legally enforced Net Neutrality but getting neutral broadband from a different provider is good enough for me. And really, the government isn't responsible to make sure people make good decisions the public would do fine if they only read the reviews.

NicoleC asked weather competition actually exists? In short, yes its looking good down here in long it varies: London has an average of 11.34 providers per exchange, Glasgow has an average of 7.82. Where as Scotland as a whole has the lowest average: 1.73* (remember that Scotland also has the lowest population density of the UK)

Source: samknows.com which only lists "operators who run their own network and deliver their entirely their own broadband services to end users (i.e. they are not simply reselling someone else's service)."

Originally posted by handel:A couple of comments mention that O2 broadband is good. Ironically, O2 is owned by BT -- it's their mobile phone arm (also, by the way, has the iPhone 3G contract in the UK).

This is incorrect. BT Cellnet, a division of BT, was demerged from BT in 2001 and became O2 UK. O2 was then bought by Telefónica Europe in 2006.

One excellent, small ISP that promises not to throttle or port blocking is Titan ADSL. They also have very high customer satisfaction.

(Might sound like it, but I'm not affiliated with them in any way, just a happy customer. I don't think that counts.)

[edit] From browsing the reviews, sounds like they may have let their customer service slip somewhat. Still, they do offer nifty, neutral-net features.

But, we should really be discussing how reprehensible this situation is where ISPs’ excuses to keep them from having to invest in network upgrades are swallowed like heavenly manna by our policy makers.

Originally posted by The Kings Raven:Where as Scotland as a whole has the lowest average: 1.73* (remember that Scotland also has the lowest population density of the UK)

Remember, population density is a red herring offered up by telco apologists. It sounds plausible but really isn't. The issue is the cost to deploy which in part depends on population density but is not determined by it.

I like how the period of "peak hours" is defined as 5pm-midnight, almost 30% of the full day, over 40% of the time when most people are probably awake, and likely 90% of the time they spend at home awake

If there is one way to reduce innovation in internet services, it is to have the government mandate a particular business model on all provision within a country. For example, if the BBC provided a 1080p iPlayer to viewers on condition that their ISP hosted a BBC server, that would be a pretty big win for me, but probably illegal under US net neutrality rules. Net neutrality is a sticking plaster over the badly-structured US internet market, where real competition is non-existent. It is unnecessary and would be positively harmful in a genuinely competitive market.

But on topic - so bloody what? It's a single ISP. Unlike in the US, where telcos don't have to allow other ISPs to sell using their infrastructure, there is complete freedom to choose the service level you want.

Originally posted by handel:However, the copper infrastructure is entirely administered and maintained by BT.

This is something of a simplification.

The BT being talked about in this article - the consumer ISP - is a different company from the BT which manages the infrastructure.

The infrastructure is managed by BT Openreach. BT the ISP buys access to the network from Openreach on wholesale terms identical to any other ISP - this separation is a legal/regulatory requirement to ensure fair competition (i.e. BT the ISP doesn't have any preferential access.) Openreach are not doing any bandwidth limiting or whatnot, that's down to the ISP.

Even then, there are multiple ways an ISP can make use of the infrastructure. At the simplest level, they can basically pay Openreach to handle everything for them up until a convenient handoff to the ISP's network. This is Openreach's IPStream/DataStream product.

At the next level, the ISP can install its own equipment into BT's exchanges (BT are obliged - again a regulatory/legal requirement - to allow third parties to install equipment in the exchange on regulated terms.)

Once the ISP has its kit in the exchange, it can basically have BT 'split' the line so that voice continues to be carried by BT, but internet is handed off directly to the ISP's DSLAM in the exchange. This is known as 'Shared LLU' (local loop unbundling) or in techy speak Shared Metallic Path Facilities.

Finally, if the ISP also offers voice service, they can have the line disconnected from BT's kit and directly connected to the ISP's equipment; Openreach's only responsibility then extends to actually fixing the wire between the customer's house and the exchange. This is called Full LLU or Full Metallic Path Facilities.

(Similar arrangements exist for voice service - so an ISP that doesn't have full LLU in an exchange can still offer voice service by basically paying Openreach to carry the voice traffic onto their network for them.)

In addition, there is of course cable service which doesn't use BT lines at all, and there are also various trials underway whereby ISPs will be allowed to install their equipment in the street cabinets, meaning Openreach's involvement will be reduced to a couple of hundred yards of wire at most.

The reality is that a large ISP like Sky will use a combination of all the various access mechanisms. The base Datastream product gives them an easy way to basically offer 100% coverage - i.e. they can sign up a customer wherever they are. They will then install their own equipment into exchanges where it makes economic sense to do so, and use shared or full unbundling for those customers.

The competitive landscape is further aided by regulated mechanisms for customers to transfer. This means a customer can switch from one ISP to another and have service transferred 'same day' (in practice in a matter of minutes or hours.) (Note that you are still subject to any contracts you have of course - this just regulates the actual technical switch once you do sign up for an alternative provider.)

All in all, the ISP competitive landscape is pretty good over here. Network neutrality doesn't worry me; if one ISP turns out rubbish, there will be another one in its place (I chose an ISP which give me multiple fixed IPs, reverse-DNS and don't mind me running servers on their network; I don't see why other people shouldn't have the freedom to choose an ISP that limits their bandwidth and whatnot if that's all they need and it's cheaper.)

Originally posted by mepants:If there is one way to reduce innovation in internet services, it is to have the government mandate a particular business model on all provision within a country. For example, if the BBC provided a 1080p iPlayer to viewers on condition that their ISP hosted a BBC server, that would be a pretty big win for me, but probably illegal under US net neutrality rules. Net neutrality is a sticking plaster over the badly-structured US internet market, where real competition is non-existent. It is unnecessary and would be positively harmful in a genuinely competitive market.

Originally posted by mepants:If there is one way to reduce innovation in internet services, it is to have the government mandate a particular business model on all provision within a country. For example, if the BBC provided a 1080p iPlayer to viewers on condition that their ISP hosted a BBC server, that would be a pretty big win for me, but probably illegal under US net neutrality rules. Net neutrality is a sticking plaster over the badly-structured US internet market, where real competition is non-existent. It is unnecessary and would be positively harmful in a genuinely competitive market.

There are net neutrality rules in the US?

The FCC has laid down a set of rules that it expects American ISPs to follow regarding net neutrality: (http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2005/20050805.asp). They're not necessarily statutory laws, but the FCC did use a net-neutrality argument to stop Comcast throttling their service recently.

Originally posted by The Kings Raven:Where as Scotland as a whole has the lowest average: 1.73* (remember that Scotland also has the lowest population density of the UK)

Remember, population density is a red herring offered up by telco apologists. It sounds plausible but really isn't. The issue is the cost to deploy which in part depends on population density but is not determined by it.

I'd have thought return on investment is more important than cost to deploy, besides quite a few of the non-BT ISPs are expanding constantly, just a lot of places left before they get to small rural exchanges.

Originally posted by handel:A couple of comments mention that O2 broadband is good. Ironically, O2 is owned by BT -- it's their mobile phone arm (also, by the way, has the iPhone 3G contract in the UK).

Originally posted by mathrockbrock:I like how the period of "peak hours" is defined as 5pm-midnight, almost 30% of the full day, over 40% of the time when most people are probably awake, and likely 90% of the time they spend at home awake

Not quite sure on why that's worthy, since "peak hours" means when it is used the most. Which is generally when people are home and awake. It is better than one service I had in Australia once where I got a 20GB peak and 20GB off peak cap. Off-peak was midnight to 7am, but of course the product was sold as a 40GB cap.

Here in the UK, we're entirely spoiled for choice. At my exchange alone, there are 7 ISPs (BT and six others) with their own equipment in the exchange and hundreds more via BT wholesale, I have the choice of ADSL, RADSL2, ADSL2+ Annex A and ADSL2+ Annex M. Oh, and a few SDSL packages too. And that's a "semi-rural" area!

If you don't like your el-cheapo deal with whoever which throttles your ass off, put your hand in your wallet and get a better deal. I did. You can.

No problem.

Net neutrality of the "waaaaaaagh freeedom" type stifles competition and places a barrier to entry, ISPs cannot offer a bargain basement package for Aunt Ethel who sends an email twice a week to her nephew in Ireland. Instead she has to fork out money she does not need to spend to get the "net neutrality premium" service because there's nothing else available.

Edit:In summary, taking the American assumptions of there being extremely few or even no choices and so what choice there is must be regulated to ensure it does not abuse its position, taking those assumptions is idiotic when you're dealing with an open and free market which caters to all needs.

It isn't a "net-neutrality" deal at all, that's 100% American and down to the telco monopolies they have. Lacking said monopolies, "net neutrality" is irrelevant.

In the US, you might be stuck with a single internet provider because there's only one phone/ADSL/cable operator in your area.

In the UK (and Australia at least) there is mandated competition at least in the ADSL space, letting you choose a different ISP with different conditions. It's not always that simple (at least here in Australia, where Telstra, our BT, keep the wholesale cost for ADSL1 high) but by and large there are options.

Net neutrality *is* important in the US but not such a big deal in countries where line sharing has been mandated.

There is a LOT of context-dropping in these heavily biased articles about "net-neutrality". The most obvious one is the idea that supply and demand do not operate in the realm of Internet provision. This issue arises because in times recently past, network hardware was fairly primitive, and there were not a lot of sites that required huge bandwidth and/or not a large proportion of users trying to use it -- so in this Eden, of course *some* users could start sucking massive amounts of bandwidth for streaming video, sharing 1000's of audio files, and even movies, etc. But for ISPs to have enough capacity to provide most users with this huge extra amount of capacity above average would require them to vastly expand their networks and charge vastly higher prices to consumers. They are instituting these caps and throttling not so much because they don't want to make money by selling higher capacity, but because they realize that MOST users will not pay many times the current rates, and that probably even the piggy users are not prepared to pay many times the current rate.

However, I do think that ultimately, it is in ISP's interests to start charging for Internet connectivity just like many other utilities, by charging a flat administrative fee plus a usage fee, perhaps even factored by time of day. That would let them fully rationalize their capacity, and enable consumers to collectively decide how much capacity they really want and need based on the cost of providing it. That "free" BBC show may not be so "free" if it can be directly translated into money based on the streaming size.

The ABC (That's the Australian one) has a similar site to the BBC called iView, and it has entered into an agreement with a bunch of ISP's (scroll down a bit) whereby its traffic is unmetered. It even tells you on the launch page whether your connection is metered or not.

Originally posted by mathrockbrock:I like how the period of "peak hours" is defined as 5pm-midnight, almost 30% of the full day, over 40% of the time when most people are probably awake, and likely 90% of the time they spend at home awake

Not quite sure on why that's worthy, since "peak hours" means when it is used the most. Which is generally when people are home and awake. It is better than one service I had in Australia once where I got a 20GB peak and 20GB off peak cap. Off-peak was midnight to 7am, but of course the product was sold as a 40GB cap.

Well, I'm in Australia, and I'm on one of those plans with a "50GB cap" (that is, 25GB peak and 25GB off peak for AU$50 per month). I'm so far from the exchange the best speed I can get about 2Mb/s (about 200KB/s).

You had an off peak time of midnight to 7am? Luxury! I have an off peak time of 1am to 7am, and if I "upgraded" my plan to a "70GB cap" (35p/35op) the off peak time would change to 4am to 9am!! Damn you, TPG!

And the only way I can get larger downloads for my money is by changing to an ISP that counts uploads, too! (That is, I can't find a better deal in my area.)

Back on topic, I can't understand how throttling certain protocols or video streams is legal. While Ars readers may know what we're doing, most people don't. They pay to have internet access - why the fuck would BT demand money from the BBC for bandwidth usage? BT's customers have already paid for the service.

If BT's business model is so shit they need to double dip by charging customers and content providers, they shouldn't be in business. Choice is good, but not everyone understands what's going on or what effect their choice has on their 'net experience. An otherwise smart customer is more likely to blame the BBC's website rather than BT's service.

Originally posted by Dark Empath:If BT's business model is so shit they need to double dip by charging customers and content providers, they shouldn't be in business. Choice is good, but not everyone understands what's going on or what effect their choice has on their 'net experience. An otherwise smart customer is more likely to blame the BBC's website rather than BT's service.

I don't disagree with you in general, and I don't really want to get into the shitstorm argument that is net neutrality, but the truth of the matter is that your argument relies on there being unlimited bandwidth available, but the truth is that it's (currently) a limited resource, and a significant increase in traffic caused by new bandwidth-intensive services would require a significant infrastructure upgrade and a resulting increase in costs that somebody somewhere needs to pay for - God forbid, but if you put the right spin on it, you could say that BT is asking for the BBC to share the burden of infrastructure upgrades, instead of it being bourne entirely by the ISP and the customer.

But who in their right mind would want to cough up money for something that they wouldn't otherwise have to? Of course the BBC (Google, et al) is going to argue for net neutrality, because ultimately it also means that they keep getting infrastructure upgrades (that they rely on) for free.

Edit: in Australia the government is trying to shoulder part of the burden with the $43b fibre network, but ultimately this is just at the cost of the taxpayer anyway. So either way, it's the individual that gets screwed while business gets a free ride.

Originally posted by zzyss:but the truth of the matter is that your argument relies on there being unlimited bandwidth available, but the truth is that it's (currently) a limited resource

That's a furphy. Of course not everybody can do everything at one time, but that's not what's happening. Ars has shown the stats in an article earlier this year - internet backbone saturation has fallen over the last year and continues to fall.

In theory you may have a point, but in practice you're not even remotely close. Companies like Telstra and BT are arseraping us and crying poor. Bandwidth is not an issue until you get to the last mile (node to home) and ISPs are quite happy for you to simply experience a slowdown at that point (just ask bloody TPG).

quote:

God forbid, but if you put the right spin on it, you could say that BT is asking for the BBC to share the burden of infrastructure upgrades, instead of it being bourne entirely by the ISP and the customer.

Spin is right. Why should the BBC pay for unnecessary upgrades to a network the customer or taxpayer has already paid for? Because Telstra and BT are pricks, and they want their cake and to eat it, too.

quote:

in Australia the government is trying to shoulder part of the burden with the $43b fibre network, but ultimately this is just at the cost of the taxpayer anyway. So either way, it's the individual that gets screwed while business gets a free ride.

I see you're in Sydney, I'm in Canberra. We are paying for a network via the government because Telstra won't, and they block others from doing so just in case Telstra wants that market later. Telstra has done this with the help of the previous Howard government (there's a reason Senator Alston was described as the "worlds biggest luddite") and the indifference of the current one.

Since you live in Sydney, I'm guessing you've become used to paying at least one toll everytime you go for a drive. That's not how things should work, and there's no need for it on the 'net.

The issue is about transparency. ISPs should be publishing their planning rules, what resources are in each package and given the system is shared they will build their peak at 25Kbps (bits) or 30 kbps per customer.

The Norwegians have expanded on the US net neutrality principles, and they balance nicely the needs of users for affordable packages and the reality of managing congestion.

ISPs should not be hiding the limitations of a cheap package but explaining how to ensure we get the most from out packages.

ISPs current practices were probably ok when they were tackling the 5% using 50% of bandwidth, but we now need greater transparency so we can get the best from the available connectivity at peak times.

There is another reason why we need transparency of key service parameters. If our high speed connectivity was configured appropriately, it should lead to the convergence of existing legacy (fixed and mobile) voice services into a multi-media communication service.

No competitive or market force alone will drive BT, SKY, Talk Talk, Voda, 02 etc to sacrifice their legacy voice revenues to build better Broadband options. We would pay more for our conenctivity but less overall.

Transparency of service parameters and suitable net neutral pricniples will help steer our path to NGN. Ofcom also need to drop their market defintions which support legacy services and move to a more generic interconnect agreements based on capacity in megabits, not pence per minute.